战略与国际研究中心-US-Air-Force-Bomber-Modernization-Plans_26页_804kb

U.S. Air Force Bomber Modernization Plans: An Independent Assessment Summary

Core Content

This report, conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in January 2008, provides an independent assessment of the U.S. Air Force's plans to modernize its bomber fleet, particularly focusing on the 2018 Bomber. The analysis highlights the uncertainty surrounding the Air Force's commitment to the 2018 Bomber and the challenges in meeting its capability requirements.

Main Views

• Uncertainty of Commitment: The Air Force's advocacy for the 2018 Bomber is seen as lacking conviction and credibility. There is a perception that the service does not have a clear strategic rationale or budget support for the program.
• Importance of Long-Range Strike (LRS): LRS is considered a key capability for maintaining U.S. global power, especially in highly defended areas. The ability to strike from long ranges without relying on nearby bases is vital for deterrence and operational flexibility.
• Technological and Budget Challenges: The technology for the 2018 Bomber is not mature enough, and the cost of developing it is expected to be high. The report suggests that the Air Force may need to prioritize other capabilities, such as ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), and that the 2018 timeline is unrealistic.
• Nuclear Capability: There is debate over whether the 2018 Bomber should be nuclear-capable. While some argue it is essential for deterrence and credibility, others suggest that the cost could be prohibitive and that the nuclear mission may not be a priority for all participants.

Key Capability Needs

The 2018 Bomber is intended to meet three principal scenarios:

1. Addressing High-End Competitors: Such as China, which is developing anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities.
2. Conventional Campaigns Against Medium Powers: Including countries like Iran, where the U.S. may need to conduct intense operations.
3. Low-Threat Environments: Such as Afghanistan and Iraq, where long-duration air support is critical for on-call tasking and persistent surveillance.

These scenarios emphasize the need for:

• Range: To strike deep into adversary territory.
• Persistence: To maintain presence and support time-sensitive targets (TSTs).
• Payload: To carry a significant amount of ordnance and potentially air-to-air missiles.

Obstacles to Fielding the 2018 Bomber

• Lack of Strategic Rationale: The Air Force has not clearly articulated the mission needs or strategic concept for the 2018 Bomber.
• Unrealistic Timeline: The 2018 IOC (Initial Operational Capability) and 2011 demonstration flight are seen as overly ambitious and not aligned with the current technological maturity.
• Cost Concerns: The program may not be affordable, especially given the rising costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and other modernization efforts.
• Survivability in Denied Areas: Providing persistent surveillance and strike in highly defended areas is extremely challenging, and may not be achievable by 2018.

Nuclear Mission Considerations

• The nuclear mission is a significant factor in the debate over the 2018 Bomber's capabilities.
• Some participants argue that the nuclear mission is critical for deterrence and credibility, especially in the context of nuclear proliferation.
• Others suggest that the nuclear mission may be secondary to conventional and ISR needs.
• The cost of nuclear capability is a major concern, with estimates ranging from 4% to 25-30% of total costs. Hardening the bomber against EMP effects is also expensive and may not be feasible in the 2018 timeframe.

Recommendations

• The report suggests that the Air Force should not divert from developing the penetrating bomber, even if it is not fielded by 2018.
• If the 2018 Bomber is not affordable, the Air Force may consider a commercial-derivative bomber optimized for low-end missions to fill capability gaps.
• A new bomber should be nuclear-capable if the cost is relatively modest, but the decision should be based on a clear strategic rationale and realistic cost and schedule assessments.

Conclusion

The 2018 Bomber is seen as a critical component of the U.S. long-range strike capability, but its development faces significant technological, budgetary, and strategic challenges. The report emphasizes the need for a realistic assessment of the program's feasibility and highlights the importance of balancing different mission requirements and capabilities.